Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense [View all]soccer1
(343 posts)178. Hearsay exceptions
When the declarant is dead (Trayvon) I believe testimony of what Trayvon said directly to his girlfriend would (might) be admissible. That could be one of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
191 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense [View all]
Yavin4
May 2012
OP
If they attack you first and you are in fear of your life as your face gets pounded then maybe so.
dkf
May 2012
#1
Huh...maybe I should have stayed in my car since I told the dispatcher the man looked suspicous.
vaberella
May 2012
#9
I'm not talking about disobeying a dispatcher. I'm talking about finding the kid a threat.
vaberella
May 2012
#57
Bringing up his past should help the FBI if they want to pursue this as a hate crime.
randome
May 2012
#93
how many men, black or otherwise, do you let beat on you before you fight back?
StarryNight
May 2012
#165
The girlfriend's testimony about what Trayvon said is second-hand and may be excluded
amandabeech
May 2012
#170
Apparently so. Even if you have been told that the police don't need you to stalk
ScreamingMeemie
May 2012
#4
In Fla, "stalking" requires repeated actions. SEe. Fla. crim law. 784.048 (2) (3). nt.
amandabeech
May 2012
#171
didn't say that. we don't know who touched who first. and neither you nor I know
StarryNight
May 2012
#163
well, if they don't have a right to do that, then they sure don't have a right to attack someone
StarryNight
May 2012
#164
Lots of "ifs" there. I'm not here to defend Zimmerman, just to get basic premises correct. nt
Romulox
May 2012
#80
I get the feeling that Zimmerman wasn't exactly looking like a Mr. Rogers type that night
Blue_Tires
May 2012
#138
why do you need to "defend" against following? you just keep walking. especially if you are a
StarryNight
May 2012
#167
He was defending himself (a child) from a creepy stalker that may or may not have been a sexual
Dragonfli
May 2012
#53
So you think it is find to physically attack someone you believe they are following you?
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#99
There those here saying the Martin had the right to PHYSICALLY attack Zimmerman
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#105
You do realize that your are making the reasonable person case, just like Zimmerman
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#151
The jury believed that he had been threatened with IIRC the screwdrivers that were being carried.
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#179
So you are good with someone escalating a verbal confrontation to physical violence?
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#106
Is it possible to put a reasonable person in fear of their life without breaking any law?
Fumesucker
May 2012
#19
We are not in court and stalking has another meaning besides the legal definition..
Fumesucker
May 2012
#30
Because it contributes to unrealistic expectations as to what will happen at trial.
hack89
May 2012
#67
He did repeatedly follow, it doesn't have to happen over days hours or weeks
uponit7771
May 2012
#46
True, they don't have to charge him to prove the chain of events and whos at fault
uponit7771
May 2012
#65
"The initial act of felon aggression was the stalking" is a huge assumption on your part
hack89
May 2012
#88
I think a case could be made that Zimmerman had a habit of stalking people of color.
intheflow
May 2012
#147
"Cops" tend to overcharge no one, as they do not have the capacity to do do.
Ikonoklast
May 2012
#107
IIRC the Sanford PD requested/recommended that Zimmerman be charged with Manslaughter
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#116
I too believe that Zimmerman should be found guilty, most likely of manslaughter
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#97
Yeap, ZMans following was willful and malicious and he followed him for a while
uponit7771
May 2012
#38
Yes it was, he was even told at one time to stay in the car...repeated doesn't have to happen over..
uponit7771
May 2012
#55
Yes, it is that simple, I disagree but I lack the proper pistol to be manly enough for them
Dragonfli
May 2012
#45
Stalking is illegal in Florida, but no one was stalked in the Martin/Zimmerman case.
ZombieHorde
May 2012
#49
The "repeated instances" can happen in a short time, stalking DOES apply here....
uponit7771
May 2012
#54
He was called the Night Stalker because it sounds catchy, not necessarily because
ZombieHorde
May 2012
#168
You might want to review the earlier posts on what intermediate range means
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#100
"Intermediate range" could be anywhere from 1 to 18 inches according to one source.
Kaleva
May 2012
#111
only if you are white. really doubt it would work if you were black.
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2012
#112
WTF does Richard Ramirez have to do with this case and/or the laws of Florida?
Taitertots
May 2012
#161
I believe whatever my TV tells me. Is that what some DUers here are arguing?
just1voice
May 2012
#128
If you follow someone because you mistakenly or even stupidly suspect they may be up to no good,
Vattel
May 2012
#143
Maybe, but, again, the hearsay rule prevents a third party from reporting what Trayvon said to her.
amandabeech
May 2012
#177